Why does Eliot choose this epigraph to preface this monologue?

To me Eliot is struck by the epigraph's

1."If I thought my answer were to  //one who would ever return to the world//..."

2. "//no one has ever returned alive from this gulf//"

-- the second observation is only a reinforcement of the first -- 

and this holds good about the place Prufrock proposes to visit -- 

a den of lust/sin -- the "gulf" from which no one returns "alive".

As for "fraud", it applies _as well_ to these women who seduce their "lovers" into a relationship which is anything but love.

Let us not forget that there is never a complete correspondence between the material Eliot borrows and its application in a new context.


--- On Mon, 2/8/10, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Chokh Raj wrote:
> > 
> > [contd.]
> > 
> > In the epigraph, Montfeltro would reveal his sin of
> fraud to Dante
> > because he thinks Dante belongs with him to hell --
> that there would
> > be no fear of infamy involved in sharing his state of
> sinfulness with
> > him.
> > 
> > In the monologue, like Dante, Prufrock is a visitor to
> this den of
> > lust/sin. 
> Apparenly yo've never bothred to read Dante, who is careful
> to demarcate
> his various categories of sin. And of course he put the sin
> of lust in
> upper heel, the lesser sins. It is notable that the lovers
> damned there
> ar _anxiousd_ to have their story told. Fraud is a much
> more serious sin
> than lust.
> Better go back and read the five or six opening cantos of
> Hell, then
> reread what Dante says about all of lower hell in geneeral,
> and frud in
> particular. Why in the world would you make such a simple
> error in re
> gard to Dante as this?
> Carrol